Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91182 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 76503 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 14:34:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Feb 2016 14:34:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:36498] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A9/84-12072-66A4BB65 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:34:15 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 304F74B015F for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:31:35 +0100 (CET) To: Internals References: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net> Message-ID: <56BB4A5F.3060906@php.net> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:34:07 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160209-2, 09/02/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi, I just added support for '[]' on strings and '{}' to the PR. Examples : $string[] = 'a'; // equivalent to : $string[strlen($string)] $string{} = 'a'; // For consistency With this change, AFAIK, '{}' and '[]' notations are handled exactly the same way (the only difference was that the content inside curly braces was not optional). This is not strictly in the scope of negative offsets. So, if you think it must be part of a separate RFC, I will remove it. Thoughts ? Regards François